Why John Cohen is ‘not against’ NCAA tournament expansion, but has other concerns
NCAA tournament expansion has become an annual talking point each March.
Some level of expansion feels like an inevitability. Yahoo Sports reported last week that the NCAA is expected to finalize an expansion of the men’s and women’s tournaments to 76 teams after the conclusion of this year’s tournament, which ended on Monday.
In an interview with, Auburn athletic director John Cohen said he’s “not against” expanding the tournament, but his concerns had more to do with the selection committee’s process rather than the number of teams.
John Cohen has made it clear that he is not fundamentally opposed to expanding the NCAA Tournament, but his stance comes with a layer of caution rooted in the long-term health of college basketball. As conversations around potentially increasing the tournament field continue to gain traction, Cohen’s perspective reflects a balance between embracing growth and preserving what already makes March Madness one of the most compelling events in sports.
At the heart of Cohen’s position is an understanding of the opportunities expansion could bring. Increasing the number of teams would allow more programs to participate on the national stage, creating additional exposure for schools, players, and conferences that might otherwise miss out. For mid-major programs in particular, expansion could open doors that are currently difficult to access, potentially leveling the playing field in a sport often dominated by power conferences. Cohen recognizes that inclusivity and broader representation are meaningful benefits in an evolving college athletics landscape.
However, his concerns center on whether expansion might dilute the very qualities that define the tournament. The NCAA Tournament has long thrived on its intensity, where every game carries enormous weight and the margin for error is razor thin. Cohen has hinted that expanding the field too much could risk reducing that urgency, potentially making early-round games feel less consequential. The magic of March Madness often lies in its unpredictability and high stakes, and any change that alters that formula must be carefully evaluated.
Another issue Cohen has raised involves scheduling and logistics. Expanding the tournament would inevitably require adjustments to the calendar, travel arrangements, and overall structure of the event. These changes could have ripple effects on student-athletes, particularly when it comes to balancing academic responsibilities with extended postseason play. Cohen has emphasized the importance of keeping athletes’ well-being at the forefront, noting that additional games and travel demands should not come at the expense of their overall experience.
Financial considerations also play a role in the discussion. While expansion could generate additional revenue through broadcasting rights and sponsorships, Cohen understands that those gains must be weighed against increased costs and potential unintended consequences. The distribution of revenue, especially among conferences of varying sizes and resources, is another factor that could influence how expansion is ultimately received across the college basketball community.
Cohen’s perspective also reflects a broader philosophical question about the purpose of the tournament. Is it primarily about crowning the best team in the country, or is it about providing as many opportunities as possible for participation and exposure? Expansion leans toward the latter, but Cohen appears to believe that the balance between competition and inclusivity must be carefully maintained. Too much emphasis on one side could shift the identity of the tournament in ways that are difficult to reverse.
Ultimately, Cohen’s stance can be described as cautiously open-minded. He is not dismissing the idea of expansion outright, nor is he fully endorsing it without reservation. Instead, he is advocating for a thoughtful approach that considers all angles, from competitive integrity to student-athlete welfare. As discussions continue, voices like his will be crucial in shaping a decision that impacts one of the most iconic events in sports, ensuring that any changes enhance rather than diminish what makes the NCAA Tournament special.
